alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018166EN.01004602.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/46

---

Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Cars)

(Case T-210/18)

(2018/C 166/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design No 198387-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 in Case R 941/2016-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 198387-0001. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 198387-0001.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
# C_2021289EN.01001701.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/17

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Galați — Romania) — XU, YV, ZW, AU, BZ, CA, DB, EC, NL v SC Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN SA, Credit Europe Bank NV

(Case C-364/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Unfair terms - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(2) - Exclusion from the scope of that directive of contractual terms which reflect mandatory provisions of national law - Article 4(2) - Exception to the assessment of whether a term is unfair - Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Alleged infringement of the obligation of information borne by a seller or supplier - Examination to be carried out by the national court as a matter of priority in the light of Article 1(2))

(2021/C 289/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Galați

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: XU, YV, ZW, AU, BZ, CA, DB, EC, NL

Defendants: SC Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN SA, Credit Europe Bank NV

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court of a Member State is hearing a dispute relating to an allegedly unfair contractual term which reflects a provision of national law which is supplementary in nature, it is required to examine, as a matter of priority, the effect of the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down in Article 1(2) thereof, and not the effect of the exception to the assessment of whether contractual terms are unfair provided for in Article 4(2) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---
# C_2021297EN.01001101.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Van Ameyde España SA v GES, Seguros y Reaseguros SA

(Case C-923/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 1, points 1 and 2 - Article 3, first, second and final paragraphs - Concept of ‘vehicle’ - Obligation to cover damage to property - Scope - Traffic accident involving an articulated vehicle the parts of which are covered by separate compulsory insurance - Damage caused to the semi-trailer by the tractor vehicle to which it was coupled when the accident occurred - Interpretation of national legislation excluding cover for that damage by the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of that road tractor)

(2021/C 297/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Van Ameyde España SA

Defendant: GES, Seguros y Reaseguros SA

Operative part of the judgment

The first, second and final paragraphs of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, read in conjunction with Article 1, points 1 and 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude an interpretation of national legislation which excludes from cover, and therefore from compensation, by compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of a road tractor, material damage caused by that tractor to the semi-trailer which was coupled to it when the accident occurred.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---
#### Cathy E. Lesanti, Appellant-Respondent, v Harmac Industries, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to renew. Although a court may properly deny a motion to renew where the new facts were available to the movant at the time of the original motion, a court has broad discretion to grant renewal even upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion *(Watsky v Town of Ossining Planning Bd.,*136 AD2d 634, 635; *Pinto v Pinto,*120 AD2d 337, 338; *Esa v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn.,*89 AD2d 865, 866).

Upon granting renewal, however, the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this personal injury action on the ground that plaintiff was a special employee of defendant. "It is well settled that one who is in the general employ of one party may be in the special employ of another despite the fact that the general employer is responsible for the payment of wages, has the power to hire and fire, has an interest in the work performed by the employee, maintains workers’ compensation for the employee, and provides some, if not all, of the employee’s equipment” *(Cameli v Pace Univ.,*131 AD2d 419, 420). The key factors in determining whether a special employment relationship exists are the right to direct the work and the degree of control exercised over the employee *(see, Irwin v Klein,*271 NY 477, 484-485; *Jeras v East Mfg. Corp.,*168 AD2d 889; *Cameli v Pace Univ., supra; Poppenberg v Reliable Maintenance Corp.,*89 AD2d 791, 792; *Brooks v Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,*71 AD2d 405, 407). Here, the undisputed facts *665show that plaintiff reported to work each day at defendant’s plant, punched a time clock, and was supervised in her production work, consisting of the assembly of disposable medical devices for defendant, by defendant’s production manager. The work performed by plaintiff was for the benefit of defendant, and was supervised and controlled by defendant. No representative of the general employer, A World of Temps, was present at defendant’s plant when plaintiff performed her work and no one other than defendant had the right to control plaintiff’s work at defendant’s plant. Thus, as a matter of law, plaintiff, at the time of her accident, was in the special employment of defendant. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present —Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
19126

#### Outrigger Hotels Hawaii v. City and County of Honolulu

Affirmed
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Alpha Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Lepin, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: September 5, 2019

 

 

*/s/ John Lepin*

John Lepin 

Principal Financial Officer

Principal Executive Officer
H. Res. 671 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 13, 2016. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3340) to 

place the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Office 

of Financial Research under the regular appropriations process, to provide for certain quarterly reporting and public notice and comment requirements for the Office of Financial 

Research, and for other purposes. All points of order against 

consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as 

adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, 

are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 

thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the further amendment printed in part 
2 

•HRES 671 EH 

A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the report, 

which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 

order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 

controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not 

be subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) 

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3791) to raise 

the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank holding company policy statement, and for other purposes. All 

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 

The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Financial Services; (2) the amendment printed 

in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member designated 

in the report, which shall be in order without intervention of 

any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
3 

•HRES 671 EH 

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 

and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 

question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
CSB BANCORP, INC.

EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



|                                                 | Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended
|------------------------------------------------ | ------------------ | ----------------
|June 30,                                         | June 30,          
|                                                 | 2001               | 2000            
|                                                 |                    |                 
|Basic Earnings per Share                         |                    |                 
|Net income (loss)                                | $(1,357,512)       | $(609,267)      
|                                                 |                    |                 
|Weighted average common shares                   | 2,624,374          | 2,618,998       
|                                                 |                    |                 
|Basic Earnings (Loss) per Share                  | $(0.52)

=====     | $(0.22)

=====  
|                                                 |                    |                 
|Diluted Earnings per Share                       |                    |                 
|Net income (loss)                                | $(1,357,512)       | $(609,267)      
|                                                 |                    |                 
|Weighted average common shares                   | 2,624,374          | 2,618,998       
|Weighted average effect of assumed stock options | 6,889              | ---             
|                                                 |                    |                 
|Total                                            | 2,631,262          | 2,618,998       
|                                                 |                    |                 
|Diluted Earnings (Loss) per share                | $(0.52)

====      | $(0.22)

=====
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                  5
<CIK>                             0000854941
<NAME>               ELEGANT ILLUSIONS, INC.                 
<MULTIPLIER>                               1
<CURRENCY>                        US DOLLARS
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS    
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998    
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1998    
<PERIOD-END>                     DEC-31-1998 
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1   
<CASH>                             1,560,403    
<SECURITIES>                               0    
<RECEIVABLES>                        431,141   
<ALLOWANCES>                          16,000    
<INVENTORY>                        2,635,870    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   5,024,899    
<PP&E>                             3,093,867    
<DEPRECIATION>                     1,350,733    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     6,862,221    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                162,244    
<BONDS>                                    0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0    
<PREFERRED>                           80,000    
<COMMON>                               6,146    
<OTHER-SE>                         3,914,509    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       6,862,221    
<SALES>                            9,706,816    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   9,706,816    
<CGS>                              3,030,003    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      3,030,003    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   6,150,959    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       475    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      525,379    
<INCOME-TAX>                         207,000    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  318,379    
<DISCONTINUED>                             0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0    
<CHANGES>                                  0    
<NET-INCOME>                         318,379    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.05    
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.05    
                               

</TABLE>
Jonathan B. Hill

T: +1 202 776 2725

jhill@cooley.com

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

January 31, 2014

Esta Rosenberg, Chief

U.S. Air Carrier Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Docket DOT-OST-2014-0010

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (“Hawaiian”) and Air China Limited (“Air China”) have completed their

polling of carriers served with their joint application for Statements of Authorization. Hawaiian 

and Air China have received a “no objection” from all carriers who were served with the 

application and are still operating.1

 

Sincerely,

Jonathan B. Hill

Counsel for Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

cc: Service List

 1 Hawaiian and Air China inadvertently served the application on Evergreen International Airlines 

(“Evergreen”). Evergreen and its relevant affiliated entities filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 

7 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on December 

31, 2013, and appear to have ceased operations.
18713

#### Survivors of Rotalia Tatum v. Oroweat Foods Co.

Affirmed
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned directors of Sky Financial Group, Inc. hereby authorize and

appoint Marty E. Adams, Chairman, President and C.E.O., and/or Kevin T.
Thompson, Executive Vice President and C.F.O., as our agents, as attorneys-in-
fact, with full power to act for us and all of us, for the purpose of
subscribing our names to the Form 10-K thereof to be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and for the purpose of making any changes or amendments
necessary or desirable to such documents and to any documents ancillary thereto,
with the same powers and to the same effect as we may do if personally present:

Signed in counterpart and dated this 21st day of March, 2001.

/s/ George N. Chandler II             /s/ Robert C. Duvall
George N. Chandler II                 Robert C. Duvall

/s/ D. James Hilliker                 /s/ Richard R. Hollington, Jr.
D. James Hilliker                     Richard R. Hollington, Jr.

                                      /s/ Jonathan A. Levy
Fred H. Johnson, III                  Jonathan A. Levy

/s/ James C. McBane                   /s/ Gerard P. Mastroianni
James C. McBane                       Gerard P. Mastroianni

/s/ Thomas J. O'Shane                 /s/ Edward J. Reiter
Thomas J. O'Shane                     Edward J. Reiter

/s/ Gregory L. Ridler                 /s/ Emerson J. Ross, Jr.
Gregory L. Ridler                     Emerson J. Ross, Jr.

/s/ C. Gregory Spangler               /s/ Robert E. Spitler
C. Gregory Spangler                   Robert E. Spitler

/s/ Joseph N. Tosh, II
Joseph N. Tosh, II
ex10-4.htm


Exhibit 10.4

  

December 15, 2016

 

Mercantile Bank of Michigan

310 Leonard St. NW

Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504

 

 

Re: First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated November 19, 2015

  

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

This letter confirms our agreement reached today regarding the Employment Agreement dated as of November 19, 2015, by and between you and me (the "Employment Agreement"). We have agreed that, effective January 1, 2017, all references in the Employment Agreement to my title as Senior Vice President, West Region President of Mercantile Bank of Michigan (the "Bank") are amended to refer to President of the Bank. 

 

Further, any adjustments to my Base Cash Compensation on or after January 1, 2017 will be made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank. 

 

Except as specifically amended by this letter, all of the terms of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect. This letter may be executed in counterparts, and is governed by Michigan law.

 

 

	
 
	 	
/s/ Raymond E. Reitsma
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Raymond E. Reitsma
	
 



 

 

MERCANTILE BANK OF MICHIGAN

 

By: /s/ Lonna Wiersma               

 

     Its: SVP – HR Director
Denied and Opinion Filed August 16, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00930-CV IN RE JOSEPH STROFFOLINO, Relator Original Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219-00125-2018



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Bridges Before the Court is relator’s pet ition for writ of habeas corpu s in which he complains of the trial court’s March 23, 2018 capias and bench warrant. In that order, the trial court found relator in contempt for failing to comply with prior discovery orders and failing to appear at the March 23, 2018 show cause hearing and directed the Collin Count y Sheriff to take relator into custody until relator complies with the tri al court’s orders. Relator states that he was arrested pursuant to the bench warrant on August 13, 2018. In this orig inal proceeding, rela tor seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing relat or’s release from custody and d issolving the bench warrant. A contempt judgment may be colla terally attacked in an original habeas corpus proceeding. Ex parte Rohleder , 424 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex. 1967). The purpose of a writ of ha beas corpus is not to determine the guilt of the contemnor, but only to determ ine whether he was afforded due process of law or if the order of contempt was void. Ex parte Gordon , 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex. 1979). A court will issue a writ of habeas corpus if the order underlying the contempt is void, or–2– if the contempt order itself is void. Id. An order is void if it is be yond the power of the court to enter it, or if it deprives the r elator of liberty without due process of law. In re Stein , 331 S.W.3d 538, 540 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Shaffer , 649 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.1983) and Ex parte Barlow , 899 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, orig. proceeding)). A judgment of contempt imposing a co ercive restraint is void if the conditions for purging the contem pt are impossible to perform. Ex parte Jones , 602 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1980, orig. pr oceeding). But the burd en is on the rel ator to establish in the trial court that he ca nnot perform the act necessary to purge himself. Id. To obtain habeas relief, the relator must provide proof that he is currently being restrained.
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(k)(1)(D); In re Kuster , 363 S.W.3d 287, 293 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, orig. proceeding). The record includes no proof that relator w as arrested or that relator remains confined or restrained. The pet ition, therefore, does not prov ide the Court with t he proof of current restraint required by Rule 52 a nd should, therefore, be denied. Accordingly, we deny relator’s August 15, 2018 “petition for wr it of habeas corpus and dissolution of warrant ” without addressing the merits of the pe tition.

180930F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE